The day conservatism died

[Edric O]

Conservatism is dead. It has been dead for many decades, but it seems most people were too busy with other things to have noticed its demise.

That may sound like a very unusual proposition at a time when there are significant political movements and parties calling themselves "conservative". But most of these parties follow a collection of ideas that only came together in the 1980s, and owes more to classical liberalism than to traditional conservatism.

A special note must be made regarding North America. North Americans are particularly unable to notice the passing of conservatism because traditional conservatism never existed in North America to begin with. Every one of the major political ideologies in the United States (and to some extent Canada) has liberal individualism coursing through its veins. "Conservatives" call for individualistic competition, they celebrate the self-made man who rises from poverty to riches, and they scorn the government. They are not conservatives - not in the traditional sense, at least.

Conservatism first arose as the reaction of the European aristocracy against the French and American revolutions. The American revolution was thought to be inconsequential at the time, so it was the French revolution above all that incurred the wrath of conservatives. Their ideals were King and Country, hereditary privilege and social immobility. Conservatism holds that men are not born equal (and let's not even discuss women). Conservatives saw institutionalized hierarchy as natural and necessary; they despised both the equality advocated by socialists and the free competition advocated by liberals.

Conservatism fought a bitter struggle against the rise of liberalism in the 19th century, and found itself increasingly on the losing side. The great bastions of European conservatism - Tsarist Russia, Austria-Hungary and the German Empire - were finally destroyed in World War I by liberal powers from the West and social revolution from the East. But that is not when conservatism died. With the kings of Europe either ousted or reduced to figureheads, with traditional hierarchy broken and nationalistic feelings hurt, conservatives rallied and regrouped. From the defeat of World War I there arose a new kind of conservatism, partly traditional and partly brand new, which went by various names: fascism, nazism, falangism, etc. It launched another war to avenge the defeat of its traditional predecessor... But instead of marking the rebirth of conservatism, World War II marked its last stand.

May 9th 1945 was the day conservatism died. Who speaks up against the ideals of the French Revolution today? Who speaks against mass democracy? Who still believes that society should be governed by a hereditary elite of "superior", educated, refined men? Who, other than Prince Charles, feels frustrated by people who try to rise above their station? No one. What was begun in Paris in 1789 was finished in Berlin in 1945. There is no more conservative opposition to liberal individualism. There hasn't been one for sixty years. The "conservatives" of today are little more than classical liberals who pay lip service to vague notions of religious identity, family values or patriotism. But religious belief is dwindling, most families end in divorce, and nations are about to be made irrelevant by capitalist globalization. Aristocracies are a fading dream, kings are little more than tourist attractions and fodder for tabloids, and social mobility is not only tolerated but encouraged. Liberalism stands triumphant over the corpse of its ancient enemy. If that is good, bad, or something in between - well, that's another question entirely.

[TMA_1]

I think it is very complex, and is good or bad depending on your personal beliefs. I have thought about apart of this discussion before. It seems that people dont see that a new evolution in self government is around the bend, completely secular, extremely independant, fueled by the mass influx of information through various ways, it is inevitable that this change comes, especially since economics on a global scale are equalizing in many parts of the world (via outsourcing and unequal trade between developing countries and developed countries). Since I am a christian, I believe that this is a sign of the final times. It is all pointing to it. I am curious Edric, since you say youare a christian, and there is no doubt of it, what do you think of the rising growth in secularism? What about the equalization of economies through the world and the slow destruction of the American "middle class"?

[Acriku]

I am curious Edric, since you say youare a christian, and there is no doubt of it, what do you think of the rising growth in secularism?

Halle-lujah. Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

Edric, would you say liberalism is a poor substitute for conservatism? By the conservatism you define, I would gladly see it dead and buried. Of course, if North Americans never experienced this definition of conservatism, then what is your definition of liberalism so that we may find if us NA's have experienced that instead?

[Edric O]

Edric, would you say liberalism is a poor substitute for conservatism? By the conservatism you define, I would gladly see it dead and buried.

Well, my answer to that will have to be a bit long.

I believe the political spectrum of Western civilization can be divided in three "domains": conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Each of these is based around one fundamental value (the values are, in order: hierarchy, individualism and equality). In my view, these domains are a much better model than the traditional left-right dichotomy because the left-right model (and all other models derived from it, such as the political compass) is based on binary thinking: "there are two sides on every issue". In fact, there are at least three sides on every issue.

As a member of the socialist domain, I would very much like to see the other two fighting each other for as long as possible. Although I hate conservatism, I would welcome its revival if it meant that it could check the overwhelming power of liberalism in present-day politics. I also have a suspicion that conservatism is inherently more vulnerable to socialist attacks than liberalism. All successful communist revolutions happened in highly conservative countries after all. I am honestly undecided as to which is worse: conservatism or liberalism. But since conservatism has been dead for 60 years, it is imperative for all socialists to focus on fighting liberalism and liberalism alone. This means, for example, that it is a wasted effort to try to combat the Religious Right. It is only a matter of time before liberal individualism sweeps it away. The danger facing the Western world in the near future is not internal religious revival or external attack, but out-of-control individualism.

Of course, if North Americans never experienced this definition of conservatism, then what is your definition of liberalism so that we may find if us NA's have experienced that instead?

Liberalism is the political outlook based on the assumption that society should be organized as a free competition between self-sufficient individuals.

That is my definition; you may consider it quite broad, but that is because liberalism itself is such a broad political current.

[Edric O]

It seems that people dont see that a new evolution in self government is around the bend, completely secular, extremely independant, fueled by the mass influx of information through various ways, it is inevitable that this change comes...

The change has already come. We probably live in the most individualistic society in history. But, on the bright side, every action provokes a reaction. The greater the excesses of one age, the greater the eventual backlash will be.

It is all pointing to it. I am curious Edric, since you say youare a christian, and there is no doubt of it, what do you think of the rising growth in secularism?

I can only be thankful for the fact that a very basic, core version of Christian morality is still the norm across Western culture. If that were to change, our situation might become hopeless.

But we're not there yet. Secularization seems to go hand in hand with liberalism; if liberalism were defeated or, more likely, if it self-destructed, that might easily put an end to secularization. Now don't get me wrong, liberal secularization was a good thing back in the 19th century when it was still trying to disentangle the Church from the state. But it has gone much too far.

What about the equalization of economies through the world and the slow destruction of the American "middle class"?

They are not getting equalized, not by a long shot. They are getting standardized and integrated into one global economy. In a sense, the wave of industrialization that hit Europe and North America in the 19th century is now hitting the rest of the world - with all the familiar consequences of 19th century-style laissez-faire capitalism. Poverty and inequality will simply keep growing until the people can't take it any more and a backlash occurs.

[TMA_1]

ahh I see :)

you are waiting for the revolution, to put it short. The growth in rapid information readily available will be a catalyst for revolution when the class divide becomes so great as to incite that said revolution. I am making it very short there obviously. In a way though, this will force christianity to face itself away from the state, and follow its old roots in small church communities. A seperation of church and state for the benefit of the church!

[Egeides]

I find Edric's "conservatives, liberals, communists" divisions interesting. It looks like "conservative" was attached in some Marxist way to this "lower infrastructure level" of the Medieval world.

I rather thought of conservative as... pro-conservation. It then form a spectrum of the most pro-conservation (careful) to the most pro-"go forward" (and I thought that it was liberals ::)).

I would rather see a conservative in Edmund Burke's style... something like (quite possibly brought with French Revolution as the context): The best for advancement might be to not destroy everything to advance (he said it in a MUCH more eloquent -and funny- way).

[nemafakei]

Edric: Um, no. Conservatism describes any ideology of maintaining the status quo, and, technically speaking, opposes progressivism and regressivism. On a systematic level, almost all major political parties in the west are conservative: they espouse variations on a theme of political liberalism with a tweaked capitalist economy. Within that narrow system, most have a range of progressive, conservative, and regressive policies.

The words you're looking for include feudalism and aristocracy.

(Edit: Precisely how is capitalism worse than feudalism, Edric?)

[Caid Ivik]

This is always so when a journalist speaks about philosophical terms. I may have a conservative thought the same way now as it did any person in 1945 or in prehistoric ages, when already a guy trained to hunt deers could refuse to hunt a mammoth just because he wanted to stay within the old way. The term itself is highly relative, however its relatant could be any tradition or teaching; it doesn't mean a teaching or tradition itself, but a stance - it's same as one cannot say that 'love' or 'hate' is dead.

[Davidu]

Personnaly I find appealing a system where all major ideologies could fit. There, everyone would be at least content.

I mean, a democracy on the scale of millions cannot actually function. Feudalism is out of the question, though that is where capitalism is going. ( try to get inside the estate of a millionaire and see if you can get out alive)

[Dude_Doc]

Interesting. Will not liberalism end, in any timeline, with one company owning everything? What is there to stop such a situation in a completely free liberal society? Far fetched, yes, but in the end, we would be back in a feudal/totalitarian society all over again.

[Edric O]

I find Edric's "conservatives, liberals, communists" divisions interesting. It looks like "conservative" was attached in some Marxist way to this "lower infrastructure level" of the Medieval world.

Small correction: The division is actually "conservatives, liberals, socialists". Socialists are a much larger group than communists. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

And I am actually just attaching the word "conservative" to its original meaning: The political current that arose in opposition to liberalism during the 19th century.

I rather thought of conservative as... pro-conservation. It then form a spectrum of the most pro-conservation (careful) to the most pro-"go forward" (and I thought that it was liberals ::)).

I would rather see a conservative in Edmund Burke's style... something like (quite possibly brought with French Revolution as the context): The best for advancement might be to not destroy everything to advance (he said it in a MUCH more eloquent -and funny- way).

But "conservatism", in that sense, is not an ideology. An ideology is a collection of ideas about the way society should be organized. If being "conservative" simply refers to defending the status quo, then the meaning of "conservative" depends entirely on what the status quo happens to be at the moment.

Besides, there is no such thing as a "go forward" ideology. What is "forward"? We don't have a choice between going in one direction or staying where we are. We have a choice between many different directions of development.

Edric: Um, no. Conservatism describes any ideology of maintaining the status quo, and, technically speaking, opposes progressivism and regressivism. On a systematic level, almost all major political parties in the west are conservative: they espouse variations on a theme of political liberalism with a tweaked capitalist economy. Within that narrow system, most have a range of progressive, conservative, and regressive policies.

Like I said, I find that definition unsatisfactory because it leaves conservatism as little more than an empty shell, to be filled with whatever constitutes the status quo at the moment. But let's not argue over definitions. Names are irrelevant in the end. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Perhaps you disagree with my use of the word "conservatism" to name the ideology I described in the first post on this thread; but regardless, you know what kind of ideology I am talking about.

(Edit: Precisely how is capitalism worse than feudalism, Edric?)

Um, it isn't.

[Edric O]

ahh I see :)

you are waiting for the revolution, to put it short.

Not quite. I'm waiting for the right conditions for a revolution. You can't just have a revolution any time you like; but you also can't wait and expect the revolution to happen by itself. You have to build a revolutionary movement and keep it active and ready, waiting for the right moment when conditions are good for a revolution.

Remember the street riots in France last year? That's what happens when the conditions are right (people are fed up with the system and want to start an open rebellion), but there is no revolutionary movement to organize them. They just sort of lash out randomly and don't achieve much.

Interesting. Will not liberalism end, in any timeline, with one company owning everything? What is there to stop such a situation in a completely free liberal society? Far fetched, yes, but in the end, we would be back in a feudal/totalitarian society all over again.

That is true. In the long term, liberalism is self-destructive. But you can also imagine a vicious cycle: Liberalism leads to one company owning everything, which creates a totalitarian society, which ends with a liberal revolution that destroys the big company, restores a free market and starts the whole cycle all over again. Nothing like that has happened in the past, but it could happen in the future. The only way to break out of such a cycle would be through a socialist revolution.

Edit: In fact, that's a great story idea. In a future totalitarian society, a liberal individualist is trying to organize a revolution, but stumbles upon secret historical documents that show how his ideals were precisely what led to the creation of that totalitarian society in the first place. Not only that, but he realizes this is the 4th or 5th time that the same thing is happening, and he starts looking for a way out.

[Caid Ivik]

That's simply out of date. You cannot anachronistically take a theory describing 19th century and then measure the present situation. Thus we may say, that dictatorship is dead - really, there are no more condotieri in definition of Machiavelli (Musharraf? Nazarbajev? Castro?).

We cannot generalize the tendencies in the societies into two or three main forces, which then determinate the changes and evolution of it. That error was made by Hegel, Marx, Wilson, Hitler and whole generations of them, which caused two world wars because of a plain logic, that by erasing a certain of these powers, you solve all the problems (I would rather mention Mani but that's for a longer debate ;) ), because the 'right' way may go up freely then. It was thought that after 1989 will be no significant problem for the western society in the world, because the 'enemy is dead' - you all know what I'm talking about. It wasn't so, and now it seems that in 50 years there'll be many significant changes in the very organisation of the Europe due to rapid change of ethnic and demographic structure. A division into any general classes is ineffective. You should try to understand the present structure in its complexity, not the past in a simplified view of few philosophers.

[Anathema]

I'm a liberal, pretty much.

Liberalism disagrees with the marxist notion that all people should be equally wealthy, rather liberalism is about individual responsibility. Motivated people succeed, slackers don't.

Two conditions are essential: education and social mobility. Everyone should have acces to adequate education so that nobody is or can claim to be hindered by his parents position, and society should be so structured so that you can potentially work your way from the bottom up to the top.

Socialism, as a broader movement, has contributed to the world in reforming archaic capitalism into something more just. There have also been socialists who have done well enough when they were in a position of leadership. To say it has contributed in other ways, is in my view false. And I don't think a socialist revolution will bring about a better society, either.

[Caid Ivik]

You call it a 'reform of archaic capitalism into something more just', when you're jailed only because you've studied in a western country?